Do models in the general equilibrium framework seem like they are explanatory? Are they caricatures or approximations? Neither?
Considering that Hausman emphasizes the fact that there are indeed no ways to cite the factors responsible for errors, economic models are closer to caricatures than approximations. True approximations require a degree of understanding of how they are measured. As given in the example of a falling leaf, universal gravitation may be better regarded as an approximation due to how we can cite factors like “ignoring air resistance.” In contrast, economic theories can only be confirmed with impossible and unmeasurable ceteris paribus assumptions.
Hausman signposts this issue with the ninth characteristic of scientific theories that general equilibrium theory violates: hypotheses must be approximately true, or we must understand the degree to which these hypotheses are untrue. Thus, such general equilibrium theories fall into the realm of “how-possibly” explanations—i.e., caricatures—rather than scientific theories, according to Hausman’s understanding.